V Chip Act

In the process of unbridling the burdened
telecommunications industry, Congresssomehow forgot itself and managed to
regulate a new blossoming business. Thisindustry was one that was a true and
unadulterated free market. It is the

Internet. This market place, which
resides everywhere yet nowhere in a placecalled cyberspace, deals in one
thing: information. Each day millions of peopletrade uncountable letters,
memos, posts on newsgroups, photographs andinnumerable conventional and
unconventional information. This is done at therate of millions of gigabytes
each hour. Nevertheless, tucked away under Title Vof the otherwise agreeable
telecommunications deregulatory law, is a measurecalled the "Communications
Decency Act"? It is also known as the "State

Censorship Edict". Whatever
its name, it is simple disastrous. The

Communications Decency Act is
cyberspace’s first encounter with the red tapeof government. In the new law,
the President and members of congress seek toshield us from what they call
"obscene, indecent and offensive" material.

Though specifically aimed at
protecting minors from pornography, Title V is bothambiguous and broad. The
law will hold citizens liable if they use the Internetpublic or accessible
to minors "any comment, request, suggestion, proposal,image, or other
communication" having anything to do with unfit material.
The

Communications Decency Act will basically adversely affect millions
of Internetusers. It will create legal double standards and it will result
in the"criminalization" of the commonplace. The Act will also set a
dangerousprecedence for state interference in cyberspace. The communications
Decency Actwill affect far more than just the "hard core" pornography that
legislatorssay they had in mind when they wrote the law. Assuming the law is
strictlyenforced, countless textual and photographic works in art,
literature, and thesciences will become illegal. Such items will include
pictures of the "Venus

De Milo", the text of J.D. Salinger’s work The
Catcher in the Rye, picturesof Michaelango’s "David", most biological texts,
and a multitude of otherthings. All of their works would carry fines of up
to $250,000 and five years inprison, according to the legislation. The
measure applies equally to the

Internet news groups, World Wide Web
pages, and any public databases, chatrooms, or archives which minors can
access. The very notions that a citizen maybe blamable under the law, be
without malice, be without criminal intent, or bewithout blame, are not only
silly but also frightening. In addition, there areirreconcilable legal
inconsistencies in the Communications Decency Act. Forexample, neither
Penthouse magazine nor the corner store that sells it is guiltyof a federal
crime when a minor buys the publication and gets exposed to"obscene, indecent,
or offensive" scenes. But under this Act they all wouldbe responsible.
Another problem is that the law does not even mention oracknowledge consent.
Regardless of whether it is you or the recipient or bothwho "initiated the
communication", the act is considered criminal. In otherwords to strike
another person in the face, without permission, is calledassault. And it is
usually against the law. Yet, to strike a man continually,with his consent,
as he tries to hit you too is called boxing or prize fighting.

This is
lawful and for most people fun to watch. To call a person a"criminal" after they
willingly takes actions to log onto and then accessinformation from his
account, World Wide Web page, or database is ridiculous.

Anyone who has
ever spent time online understands that the Internet and servicessuch as
America Online, CompuServe and others like them are not a passive medialike
television or the radio. They are active in the sense that the user
mustactually go and get the content they whish to view. In addition there
arecurrently available filtering software that allows parents and teachers
toscreen out indecent Internet content. So how can there be either crime or
blamewith active use of the Internet. Because the President signed the
legislation,in reality an assenting citizen will be permitted by law to do
most anythingafter his or her 16th birthday. That is the age of consent in
most states. Yet,in cyberspace a person will be relegated to downloading
weather maps and imagesfrom the Hubbell Space Telescope until their majority
two years later. Theywould not even be able to research on the "net", things
that they arelearning in school. Federal tampering with speech and
individual violation isnothing new in the United States. The Sedition Act of
1798 once allowed federalofficials to imprison citizens who defamed or
brought "into contempt ordisrepute" the President and congress. And in the
present day a person isunable to turn on a television or radio or even talk
to another person withoutbeing guilty of the defunct Sedition Act. The
Federal Communications Commissionmaintains volumes of "administrative law"
regulations, none of which werevoted upon, governing demeanor and speech on
the airways. So it is no wonderthat they feel obligated to also regulate the
Internet. The logical solution toall this lies not with the government, but
with parents. If they choose, parentsmay monitor their children’s Internet
use. Monitoring a child’s Internet useis a far easier chore than monitoring
the television, books, or magazines. Inaddition, computer programs and the
actual machines can be made to
requirepasswords.